Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 30 January 1 >

December 31[edit]

Category:Ice hockey players by league (defunct)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Ice hockey players by league (defunct) to Category:Ice hockey players by defunct league. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ice hockey players by league (defunct) to Category:Ice hockey players by defunct league
Nominator's rationale: No reason to disambiguate in this fashion, also would match the style of other sub-categories in the parent category that it is in. Djsasso (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Flibirigit (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why is having played for a defunct league notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Players in these defunct leagues were professional ice hockey players, which has asserted notability per WP:BIO and WP:N. Flibirigit (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why does the category need to include defunct. The fact that they played in a league is what is notable, not that the league is defunct. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest I think all of the subcats in this cats parent cat should be upmerged, because the old cat was hardly over populated. But I couldn't think of how to word the arguement for that yet. So for now I thought the subcats should atleast match each other. -Djsasso (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Villages in Catron County[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in Catron County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There's only one village in Catron County, and not likely to have any more anytime soone. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Towns in Catron County[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in Catron County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There are no towns in this county; all communities are villages or unincorporated communities or ghost towns. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gotras of Jats[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Gotras of Jats to Category:Jat gotras. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gotras of Jats to Category:Jat gotras
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is awkward and non-standard. Otto4711 (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:BattleTech planets[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BattleTech planets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category empty. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:International Hockey League 2007[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Category:International Hockey League 2007 to Category:International Hockey League (2007-). With respect to Otto's sensible comment, we're the only tail, articlespace is the dog. I think we need to go with the article name. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:International Hockey League 2007 to Category:International Hockey League (2007-)
Nominator's rationale: To match the name of the category it matches to and to follow the naming most other leagues in this situation use. Djsasso (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - but with a space between date and dash and the dash and the closing paren. I don't much care for open-ended dates in category names but am not coming up with a better alternative. Otto4711 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - to match league's article title. Flibirigit (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:International Hockey League 2007 teams[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:International Hockey League 2007 teams to Category:International Hockey League (2007-) teams, same as previous entry. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:International Hockey League 2007 teams to Category:International Hockey League (2007-) teams
Nominator's rationale: Move to match the name of the article that it correspondes with. Djsasso (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - but with a space between date and dash and the dash and the closing paren. I don't much care for open-ended dates in category names but am not coming up with a better alternative. Otto4711 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - to match league's article title. Flibirigit (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Brookings Institution[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brookings Institution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for an institution. There's only one article in there now, a David Sandalow, which is apparently because Sandalow is currently a Fellow @ the BI. That would be overcategorization of Sandalow even if the BI category needed to exist, which it doesn't. Lquilter (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and WP:OC. If other articles on BI fellows exist, listify them if there isn't one already. Otto4711 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kalamazoo Wings (UHL) players[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Kalamazoo Wings (2000-) players, and correspondingly rename Category:Kalamazoo Wings players to Category:Kalamazoo Wings (1974-2000) players per many other such categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kalamazoo Wings (UHL) players to Category:Kalamazoo Wings (UHL/IHL) players
Nominator's rationale: The league has recently renamed itself to the International Hockey League. Djsasso (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename to Category:Kalamazoo Wings (2000 - ) players per below discussion - cumbersome name and even though there were two teams using the same name and logo the one appears to be a direct successor to the other. There is no need for the UHL/IHL qualifier. If they are considered to be two completely separate and unrelated teams then their players should not be categorized together. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps Category:Kalamazoo Wings (2000-) players would be a better way to do it then. The reason I have issue is that the league renamed itself to International Hockey League which existed before and had a team called the Kalamazoo Wings also. So even if we seperated the UHL and IHL versions of this single team we would then have the problem with having two IHL teams of the same name. -Djsasso (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any articles for players from the old iteration of the team? If not, is there really a need to disambiguate with the non-standard category name at this point? Otto4711 (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah Category:Kalamazoo Wings players is a bigger category than this one which is why this is the one that is disambiguated. Given time this one might get larger than the other though it would probably be quite some time as this league is not as high a level league as the old one. And just to be clear this version of the team was in no way connected to the current version of the team. -Djsasso (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:International Hockey League players[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:International Hockey League (1945-2001) players.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:International Hockey League players to Category:International Hockey League (1945-2001) players
Nominator's rationale: The league is no longer operating and there is a new league using this name. Also this is the name of the article that would match the category. Djsasso (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - to match league's article title. Flibirigit (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: Too many different IHLs for this cat to make sense. --JD554 (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. Cat badly in need of disambiguation. Resolute 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politicians by nationality[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. There really isn't consensus as to whether it should be "islands" or "islander" so this close is to fix the "politicians of foo" to "fooian politicians".. Kbdank71 16:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Politicians from Abkhazia to Category:Abkhaz politicians
Propose renaming Category:Politicians of the British Virgin Islands to Category:British Virgin Islands politicians
Propose renaming Category:Politicians of the Republic of the Congo to Category:Republic of the Congo politicians
Nominator's rationale: To match naming covention of sub cats in the parent category Category:Politicians by country. Lugnuts (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is there a reason why the British Virgin Islands people categories aren't named British Virgin Islander the way that, say, the Turks and Caicos Islander categories are? Otto4711 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-question - is "Turks and Caicos Islander" correct? That sounds like the noun form to me - the only adjectival form I've ever heard is "Turks and Caicos Island(s)" (cf. New Zealand/New Zealander) Grutness...wha? 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really have no idea. I was going off the lead category Category:Turks and Caicos Islander people but the subcats aren;t uniform. So the broader question is whether the Foo Islander form is default correct or whether it's dependent on the island or what. Otto4711 (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what the nativies of the BVI call themselves. I couldn't establish it from the main article. I'm happy for it to renamed to either my nomination or Islander. Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I've just done a google-check, and if that is anything to go by, the correct demonyms are "British Virgin Islands people" and "Turks and Caicos Islands people", both in terms of the number of hist (by a very large ratio -see below) and also in terms of actual local sources (e.g., The Virgin islands Daily News, Virgin Islands Now. As far as the ghits are concerned:
  • "British Virgin Islander people" - 3 ghits
  • "British Virgin Islands people" - 1200 ghits
  • "British Virgin Island people" - 2 ghits
  • "Turks and Caicos Islander people" - 57 ghits
  • "Turks and Caicos Islands people" - 973 ghits
  • "Turks and Caicos Island people" - 2 ghits
As such, it looks like "X islands people/politicians/whatever" is correct in both cases. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, i'm not sure what is best in the case of Congo. The nominator's proposal does match the current Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo politicians. However, to follow the general naming scheme, 'Congolese politicians' would be prefered. How about 'Category:Congolese (Brazzaville/Kinshasa) politicians' or 'Category:Congolese politicians (RC/DRC)'? --Soman (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:England goalkeepers who have made embarassing mistakes in important games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. A combination of criteria G1 and G10, I suppose. Picaroon (t) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:England goalkeepers who have made embarassing mistakes in important games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Incorrectly spelt and this category only serves to disparage the players listed. KingStrato (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Define embarassing. Define mistake(s). Define important game. A POV chuckle-fest though! Lugnuts (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Unfinished episodes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Unfinished episodes to Category:Unaired television episodes
Nominator's rationale: Merge, About the same? Skullers (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Youth development organizations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 14:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Youth development organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Badly defined category with major overlaps with Category:Youth organizations. The main article Youth development states explicitely that youth development is the "mission of many youth organizations" which makes it very hard to decide if an organization is "only" an youth organization or aiming at the personal development of youth. -- jergen (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Youth development" is a stated goal of many youth organizations; however, it is not the only purpose of youth organizations. The two categories are not synonymous. This category groups together logically connected orgs that are self-defined as providing youth development. • Freechild'sup? 17:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Youth organizations is a supercategory that should include various subcats. However, I confess that "youth development organizations" seems incredibly vague, and the head article is not helpful: Youth development basically talks about the stages of life and development of youth. I suggest that if there is a discrete and defined concept that YDOs is supposed to capture, that we might need a more descriptive category name. What is the "youth development" that these orgs might provide, Freechild? (or others)? --Lquilter (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for asking Lquilter. Admittedly, there is an issue here with too broad a subject matter; however, narrowing it becomes challenging. That's why initially I have simply included organizations that self-identify as "youth development" organizations through their mission statements. Youth development generally covers social, emotional, educational, moral and physical development. You could break each of those into a subcat, i.e. Category:Emotional youth development organization, but that would just be awkward, to say the least, particularly if a group (i.e. YMCA) attests to doing all the above. As it stands, Category:Youth organizations is just too big with the possibility of exploding; I was merely trying to make sense of it. • Freechild'sup? 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Inclusion criteria need to be refined, but just like Category:Youth empowerment organizations, it points to articles that are a subset of youth organizations, which is an overpopulated category right now. I think its presence decreases the madness, not the other way around. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone write up a draft of the proposed inclusion criteria? I can't form a recommendation without more information. --Lquilter (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the determining factor I used for assigning this cat relied on each article identifying the organization or the organization identifying itself as a "youth empowerment" org. See reasoning above. • Freechild'sup? 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - are there any youth organizations that do not have as a goal the "development" of the youth in question? I'm thinking not, so splitting out those who happen to say they're about "development" seems a bit on the unnecessary side. Otto4711 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Youth development is a specific and recognized activity within the larger field of youth work; that are organizations that specifically state they partake in youth development activities, and there are those that do not. For instance, most religious programs do not proclaim they are youth development programs; however, most skill-building organizations do. Youth development has general principles and guidelines that all organizations do not adhere to. • Freechild'sup? 13:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal With regard to the qualifiers for what constitutes a youth development organization, I would say that in the future orgs that are included in this cat be specifically referenced from their own sources or other reliable sources as being youth development organizations. • Freechild'sup? 14:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Bosnian and Herzegovinian people[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to "Bosnia and Herzegovina (X)". There's no obvious consensus here, but there is a need to match the phrasing of all other people categories. Neither "Bosnian" nor "Bosnian and Herzegovinian" works, as the former is inaccurate (see the article) and the latter is rarely used. Thankfully, as Roustabout notes below, we have a parallel in Category:Trinidad and Tobago people by occupation. The solution there is to use the country name when there is no usable demonym. This keeps the category in line with its kindred ones, and doesn't create any new ambiguity. There are a few other categories in this grouping that may also need to be nominated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Actors from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian actors
Propose renaming Category:Film producers from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian film producers
Propose renaming Category:Musicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian musicians
Propose renaming Category:Musicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina by genre to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian musicians by genre
Propose renaming Category:Composers from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian composers
Propose renaming Category:Painters from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian painters
Propose renaming Category:Clerics from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian clerics
Propose renaming Category:Cardinals from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian cardinals
Propose renaming Category:Journalists from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian journalists
Propose renaming Category:Judges from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian judges
Propose renaming Category:Physicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian physicians
Propose renaming Category:Politicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian politicians
Propose renaming Category:Saints from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian saints
Propose renaming Category:Soldiers from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian soldiers
Propose renaming Category:Sportspeople from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian sportspeople
Propose renaming Category:Athletes from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian athletes
Propose renaming Category:Basketball players from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian basketball players
Propose renaming Category:Boxers from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian boxers
Propose renaming Category:Judoka from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian judoka
Propose renaming Category:Football managers from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian football managers
Propose renaming Category:Martial artists from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian martial artists
Propose renaming Category:Tennis players from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian tennis players
Propose renaming Category:Writers from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian writers
Propose renaming Category:Dramatists and playwrights from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian dramatists and playwrights
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In line with previous consensus and to match naming conventions of parent categories (foo by nationality). Note that the dramatists category is the only one using a hyphen and not the word "and". Lugnuts (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Category:Bosnian X. Bosnians and Hercegovinans are not two distinct groups, rather these are two historical regions making up the modern state of Bosnia & Hercegovina, and there are not clear boundaries between these two regions. Citizens of this state are refered to in English as 'Bosnians'. This might not be 101% encyclopediatically correct, but fits common usage in English language (little like using the term 'Russian' in the case of the Russian Federation). --Soman (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might not be 101% encyclopediatically correct Evedentily from when you search for the word Bosnia on here and go straight to a disambig page. There is no such country as Bosnia, but there is for Bosnia and Herzegovina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs) 18:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom; the Bosnia & Herzegovina issue should be handled on that article first and shouldn't be an interference with standardising the category name forms. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename all to "Bosnian Foo" per Soman. Using "Bosnian and Herzegovinian" has the unfortunate appearance of including two different ethnic or national groups. I see this as being similar to how WP names people from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. We use Category:Vincentian people; not Category:Vincentian and Grenadian people or whatever. Using the current format "Foo from Bosnia and Herzegovina" has the benefits of avoiding confusion and also maintaining the full name of the state. (I'm sorry I didn't express this opinion in the earlier CFD for the single category, but obviously I disagree with the change made there.) Snocrates 01:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it's the incorrect formatting of the category name, as per all the other sub-cats in each parent. We're not dealing with an "ethnic group", but a country, and as I've stated already, there is no such country as Bosnia. Lugnuts (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why several have suggested keeping it as is rather than renaming to "Bosnian Foo". There can be exceptions to the formatting standards when rephrasing it improves clarity or reduces confusion. Snocrates 09:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:King's Quest locations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:King's Quest locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - I don't think we have any articles about King's Quest locations, and they would probably have their notability challenged if we did. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Central School of Speech and Drama[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central School of Speech and Drama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This seems a convoluted mess of recursive intermixing and general overcategorization. Some of the cats will only ever have one other of these categories in them.JERRY talk contribs 05:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong oppose First off Webber Douglas only merged into the Central School in the last couple of years and putting people who were there previously into the CSSD category is anachronistice. Secondly the alumni categories especially contain a large number of entries, whilst the other categories are the standard structure for UK universities (of which the CSSD is a part, being a college of the University of London). The category structure for uni people is stable and consistent, particularly for the University of London which has the people separated out and sub-categorised accordingly, and randomly deleting individual sections severely damages its overall efficiency. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that the category structure is consistent. The webbers get into the centrals high up the tree, and then themselves exist aside the similar ones at the bottom. It's a ball of yarn that a cat played with currently. If kept, the structure needs to be standardized per all UK univs, IMHO. JERRY talk contribs 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually this set-up is pretty standard for UK universities that have either merged or absorbed - see for example Category:Queen Mary, University of London which has a similar set-up handling Westfield College, Barts and The London so that all alumni of the current institution and predecessors are either in the QMUL alumni category or the relevant sub category etc... The structure isn't overtly complicated - it just reflects the standard People subcategory with academics and alumni a further sub-category and former institutions linked in at the appropriate place. Or to put it another way, how would dumping into an unstandardised single institution category be an improvement, especially with the large number of alumni for both CSSD and Webber? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Haven't seen this before but it seems perfectly OK, and consistent with other UK tertiary colleges. Bizarre proposal. The handling of Webber Douglas and Central School categories seems OK too. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Oil companies of South Korea[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename "oil and gas" to "natural gas" and keep "oil" per vegas. Kbdank71 14:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Oil companies of South Korea to Category:Oil and gas companies of South Korea
Nominator's rationale: These categories are overlapping. Therefore these categories should be merged. In case of most countries, there is same category (Oil and gas companies in ..) for oil and gas companies. However, in some cases there are separate categories for oil companies and gas companies in certain country. I personally agree with merging in both way. Beagel (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No where near enough to justify 2 categories and there is overlap anyway. Just put them together for the sake of housekeeping and move on. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a series. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After merging it still will be part of series.Beagel (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The parents here are Category:Natural gas companies by country and Category:Oil companies by country. They contain a mix of oil companies, gas companies and combined companies. I guess the decision here is what needs to be done here to clean up this so there is a consistent view. One option would be to split all of the combined country ones into oil and gas, this already exists for some countries, or to combine them all. If all companies do not work in both fields, then it is probably far better to retain the individual categories and remove the combined ones. Some companies would be members of both and there is nothing wrong with that. However including companies that do not work in both areas in a category that implies that they do is misleading.
So I still stand by my keep and think that the one article currently in Category:Oil and gas companies of South Korea be upmerged to Category:Oil companies of South Korea and Category:Natural gas companies of South Korea and that Category:Oil and gas companies of South Korea be deleted.
If there is consensus here, then the retainder of the categories can be addressed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with splitting combined categories.Beagel (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:BattleTech history[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:BattleTech. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BattleTech history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category now has only one article, upmerge to BattleTech. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - true, but it may be repopulated in the future.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Considering the entire history article has no secondary sources, I doubt there will be any articles notable enough to repopulate the category. Pagrashtak 17:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - no need for the separate single-article category. Otto4711 (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - Category does nothing but encourage an in-universe wiki to grow. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nuclear compensations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. It is not clear, either from the category itself or from the discussion here, what this category is actually for. Nor is it clear why it should be kept. Kbdank71 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuclear compensations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete a good place to start for this would be a category for legislation related to nuclear power, for which compensations could be a sub-category... eventually. Currently this is way overcategorization. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I'm not convinced that we currently need this category. If kept rename to Category:Laws and treaties affecting nuclear compensation or something like that. The current name makes the contents unclear. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever result don't keep the "compensations" in name of the category per Vegaswikian. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Theatre companies by country[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was relisted on jan 9. Kbdank71 14:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in the United States to Category:American theatre companies
Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Sweden to Category:Swedish theatre companies
Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Russia to Category:Russian theatre companies
Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Irish theatre companies
Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in the Philippines to Category:Filipino theatre companies
Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Canada to Category:Canadian theatre companies
Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Germany to Category:German theatre companies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In line with Category:Fooian foos naming convention. Otto4711 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep these and rename the ones which do not match this Category: foo in foocountry naming convention. These are 'theatre companies by country', not 'theatre companies by nationality' and for good reason. For example, a 'German theatre company' could exist in the United States, but that company belongs in the US category, not in the Germany category. Do not confuse things. Hmains (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that a "German theatre company" could exist in the United States. A German-language theatre company might, but that's an entirely different question. Otto4711 (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment regardless, these are in a category 'by country' not a category 'by nationality' and therefore these subcats are named correctly. Hmains (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Reports of the United States government[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reports of the United States government to Category:American commissions and inquiries
Nominator's rationale: Rename - in line with similar categories Category:Canadian commissions and inquiries and Category:Israeli commissions and inquiries. Otto4711 (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To me, "commissions and inquiries" are quite different from the reports they generate. I realize the articles here in wikipedia often discuss the two together, but not all C&Is generate reports, and certainly not all reports are generated by C&Is. Is there some reason we don't have two category trees? --Lquilter (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep And rename the Canadian and Israeli categories instead. 'American' is reserved for use in describing US people and their culture and society. In all other cases, specifically including the federal government, 'United States' is used. These are reports of the United States government, not the American people. Hmains (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hmains. It seems to me the Canadian and Israeli ones are misnamed, not this one. Snocrates 09:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and also keep the separate category Category:United States national commissions. The category currently contains two rather different things: reports and publications of the govt, and report of commissions and inquiries, which are usually established with a non-governmental membership. The Canadian and Israeli categories are correctly named. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not convinced by the arguments for renaming. Moreover, "... and inquiries" is not a formulation that would even be familiar to most Americans. --Lquilter (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Intellectually impaired[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Intellectually impaired to Category:Intellectually impaired people. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Intellectually impaired to Category:Intellectually impaired people
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:MOS. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as potential attack category with arbitrary inclusion standard. Otto4711 (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The inclusion standard is there to prevent abuse, not to invite: "Any article included here should have a verifiable proof for the intellectual impairment in its references (i.e., tested IQ test score or formal diagnosis as having any form of mental retardation)." --BorgQueen (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Valuable category with clear inclusion standards. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also should note that the parent category is Category:People with disabilities so please consider this when renaming. Better subcats would be Category:People with a physical disability and Category:People with an intellectual disability I suppose? Looking at some of the articles the naming is just all wrong. Blind people and Deaf people should be changed to "People who are....." Disabled sportspeople to Sportspeople with a disability etc. Sting_au Talk 06:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Books by writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was relisted on jan 9. Kbdank71 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books by writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Rename to Category:Books by indigenous writers of the Americas. The current name is too wordy & poorly-phrased. If anybody can improve on my suggested name, please do! Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Sting_au Talk 06:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As category creator, believe me when I say I don't like the current title - but the category is designed to cover writers who are Native American, First Nations, or from any peoples indigenous to the Americas (Tlingit, Hawaiian, various South American groups). If you change it from "peoples indigenous to..." to "people indigenous to..." then that would expand the atual meaning of the category to cover anyone born in the Americas, regardless of ethnicity, which would make the category pointless (and there is definitely a need for this category). In other words, the tribal affiliation is important, not the individual person's place of birth. Vizjim (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I understand your concerns, and I agree that it's important to get the title right. How about going with a slight modification of my proposed rename, using a capital "I" in Indigenous to convey that it's not merely an adjective? And then we can add some explanatory info just to be sure the intent of the category is clear to everybody. Cgingold (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's relist this so we can elicit additional input from other editors. Cgingold (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea to relist. Not sure that the capital "I" can bear the weight you suggest: would welcome other editor's input. Vizjim (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Airports in the Chuvash Republic[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Airports in the Chuvash Republic to Category:Airports in Chuvashia. Angus McLellan (Talk)

Propose renaming Category:Airports in the Chuvash Republic to Category:Airports in Chuvashia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although "Chuvashia" and "Chuvash Republic" can both be used to refer to the territory in Russia, the main article is Chuvashia and the parent Category:Chuvashia and its other subcategories have opted for the former. Snocrates 11:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Airports in the Udmurt Republic[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Airports in the Udmurt Republic to Category:Airports in Udmurtia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Airports in the Udmurt Republic to Category:Airports in Udmurtia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although "Udmurtia" and "Udmurt Republic" can both be used to refer to the territory in Russia, the main article is Udmurtia and the parent Category:Udmurtia and its other subcategories have opted for the former. Snocrates 11:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Awami League[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Awami League to Category:Bangladesh Awami League. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Awami League to Category:Bangladesh Awami League
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a political party in Bangladesh. Suggest using full name of party, per main article Bangladesh Awami League. Snocrates 11:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename proposed name is much more clear for a non-involved reader. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Sting_au Talk 06:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as there is no bigger, broader Awami League serving as a mother organization for Bangladesh Awami League, it seems much wiser to rename the cat to the party's full name (which is not too long anyways). Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Serials, periodicals and journals[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Serials, periodicals and journals to Category:Periodicals. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serials, periodicals and journals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Rename to Category:Periodicals. The current name is redundant & repetitive. Simplicity is clarity. Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is redundant but sometimes that's helpful with synonymous terms, so that everyone understands all the relevant synonymous terms are included. --Lquilter (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I think that serials and journals do qualify as periodicals, proposal is simpler and effective. Go with it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but it will need a head note making it clear that serials and journals are included. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most certainly. Cgingold (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename with clear note. Serials, journals, newspapers, magazines are all periodicals. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename As per above comments. Note that the Getty's Art & Architecture Thesaurus (a highly authoritative source), includes "periodicals" and "journals (periodicals)" - along with several other types of publication - under the heading "serials". The concepts are so closely related that I see no trouble shortening the WP category to "Category:Periodicals". Pinkville (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'comment the distinctions are important, but are used a little inconsistently. I have no objection to the simplified language,providing a scope note is used. DGG (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British people of the Indian Mutiny[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 14:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British people of the Indian Mutiny to Category:British people of the Indian Rebellion of 1857
Category:British military personnel of the Indian Mutiny to Category:British military personnel of the Indian Rebellion of 1857
Category:Indian Mutiny Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Indian Rebellion of 1857 Victoria Cross recipients
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Parent category is Category:Indian Rebellion of 1857 and other subcategories use this name. Proposed name seems more NPOV. Indian Mutiny redirects to Indian Rebellion of 1857. (I'm not sure why "of 1857" is necessary, since Indian rebellion redirects to Indian Rebellion of 1857, but that seems to be the accepted name for the conflict.) Snocrates 11:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete the VC recipients category (and the other VC recipients by conflict categories). Otto4711 (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rename per nom Including people involved in specific events in a category is widespread in WP and to be commended. There is no reason to get into the useless list vs category argument. Some editors want to delete all the lists of people they see; others want to delete all the categories of people they see. Useless debate does not improve WP. Both lists and categories are part of WP and can co-exist. Hmains (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Hmains. "Inidan Mutiny" is the British term for the conflict. Indian historians use some term like "First War of Independence". Indian rebellion of 1857 has presumably been adopted as a neutral term. The categories should certainly remain. The value of lists is that they can contain red links for articles that would be desirable. However a list without red links or room for expansion has little value. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the first two, keep the third, the name of the war for in the third case such match the motivation for rewarding the Victoria Cross, and the British name should be kept. The first two should be renamed, but I'm not sure of the nominator's wordings. 'British military personnel of the Indian Rebellion of 1857' makes it sound like these persons participated in the rebellion, when they in fact had the opposite role. I'd prefer Category:British military personnel during the Indian Rebellion of 1857, but not sure how to name the first case. --Soman (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Writing tools[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Category:Writing tools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

Yup, I had the same thought. Cgingold (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. I am the original author of the category...apparently. :) It was about 25,000 edits ago. Honestly, I don't have an opinion either way. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or clean-up (no preference) -- too vague! at least as implemented. Organizations and things and people all together. --Lquilter (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mish-mash category with vague inclusion criteria. Otto4711 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jimmy Cauty albums[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep per WP:SNOW.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jimmy Cauty albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: Category consists of one album. Unnecessary. Drewcifer (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close - Number of articles is irrelevant when the category is part of a large and widely-accepted category structure, in this instance Category:Albums by artist. Otto4711 (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It does appear standard to do it this way. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Standard practice and, besides, he's not dead yet! --kingboyk (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm still a little new to the whole category thing, but isn't the whole point of a category to organize similar articles based on certain criteria? Practically speaking, what does this category accomplish, and/or, how does this category help anyone with anything? This seems like a slippery slope to me: even though it is a "widely accepted structure" and "standard practice" would having a bunch of one-article categories improve Wikipedia in any way? I'm just not sure if going by precedence is useful, in cases like this. Drewcifer (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct that in most instances having categories that will never grow beyond a few articles is overcategorization, but there is strong consensus for categorizing all album articles on the basis of the artist who recorded it. Under Wikipedia:OC#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth such small categories are as you note an exception to that general guideline. All albums should also be categorized with other similar albums by such characteristics as genre, year of release and so on. Otto4711 (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Walloon militant[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Walloon militant to Category:Walloon movement activists
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't think "militant" is quite the right word for English. I think my proposed name is what the category is trying to be. In French, saying "Walloon militant" is probably correct, but it doesn't come across with quite the same meaning in English. In any case, it should be "militants" if the term is kept. Snocrates 09:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I couldn't see the sense in renaming at first. I scanned the article pages in this category and agree "movement activists" a better choice. Sting_au Talk 06:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, except for the guy who designed the Wallon flag, I don't see any clear connection between these people and Wallon movement. I think the cat has been used for people who are Wallon and 'militants' (in the sense of the French word militant, i.e. more or less same as activist). --Soman (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Independence Movements[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was relisted on jan 8. Kbdank71 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Independence Movements to Category:Sovereignty movements
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Not really a difference between the two. Only article of independence category is Puerto Rico independence movement and it's already in the sovereignty movement category. Snocrates 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given the subcats and article names in the target category, why not reverse merge? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True — yes, either could work and the subs tend to use "independence" more commonly than "sovereignty". I only chose the merge the way I did b/c "sovereignty" had the majority of categories and "independence" only had one article. Whatever others think should be fine either way. Snocrates 07:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reverse merge so the end result will be just Category:Independence Movements which is the more commonly used term I expect. Hmains (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge per Hmains. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator) on reverse merge : if reversed merged, the target category should be changed to Category:Independence movements (caps change). Snocrates 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverge merge, with lower-case 'm' in 'movements'. --Soman (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aligarh Movement[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge (I'll add it to both). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Aligarh Movement to Category:History of Pakistan
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Only article is Aligarh Movement. Snocrates 09:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but to Category:History of India. The Aligarh movement was a predecessor of the Pakistan movement, but the Aligarh movement as such had nothing to do with the demand for Pakistan. --Soman (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Types of organization[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming discussion Category:Types of organization to Category:Organizations by type of Category:Types of organization, Category:Organizations by type, and Category:Organizations more generally
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Minor rename change for two reasons: (1) consistency with the other sorting categories in Category:Organizations (e.g., Organizations by legal status, membership, subject, etc.); and (2) I believe it's clearer -- like the other categories here, this is a category collecting organizations, sorted by type. (It does also contain articles about types of organizations. The subcategories are all "types of X" but those are largely categories of "Xes".) Discussion of use of organizations categories & thoughts on three overlapping trees which may need to be merged. Lquilter (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point about "types of" and "by type" is well-taken. When I started working on these categories, people had begun a clean-up but left it half-finished, so there was a lot of confusion. I'm happy to withdraw the nomination since there is a good rationale for two separate categories and we can clearly explain it (I couldn't have, before this, based on the preexisting explanations). I've amended my "CFR" nom above to reflect a change to a broader discussion.
  • I'm not sure I agree with the use of "Organizations by type", since I think that the subcategories Jpbowen proposes will do just fine as subcategories of Category:Organizations, without an additional supervening level of category. I wouldn't have thought to go looking for Category:Organizations by subject within a subcategory Category:Organizations by type, for instance.
  • As long as we're here, I would also welcome people's thoughts about a larger problem we're having with Category:Organizations, which is the general overlap in usage and meaning between Category:Non-profit organizations and Category:Charities and Category:Non-governmental organizations. In general these three trees should be merged, and I would recommend Category:Non-profit organizations for the following reasons. (1) We have several largely overlapping category trees and items are categorized in one or the other basically based on which term people were more familiar with and which tree they happened to encounter. Multiple people have commented on this problem over the past couple of years and suggested merger and cleanup, and we've attempted to patch it with explanatory notes on the category trees, but it's an unfriendly system to have three trees for effectively the same purpose. So I want to propose that the three of these be merged together. (2) "Charities" is the commoner term in the UK, but it's ambiguous -- it can be used in two different ways -- as both a tax status ("non-profit charitable tax status") or it can mean a type of activity ("charitable purpose", usually human or animal welfare -- e.g., food, medicine, education). I take it that it's the more common term in the UK for "non-profits", but am concerned I'm missing some UK nuance. (3) Category:Non-governmental organizations is a term which came out of organizations working with the UN, but basically has replicated the same sorts of subject-oriented categories--environmental, development, food, education, etc. (4) My opinion is "non-profit organizations" is the best name: it is clear, widely understood, not ambiguous, doesn't suggest a particular function (like charity does) or a particular context (like "non-governmental organizations" does).
--Lquilter (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your useful discussion above. Re non-profit organizations, I have noticed this problem too and a merger of the related categories could be worthwhile. Categorization is fairly random and country-related at the moment. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Lquilter, (2) "Charities" is the commoner term in the UK, but it's ambiguous -- it can be used in two different ways -- as both a tax status ("non-profit charitable tax status") or it can mean a type of activity ("charitable purpose", usually human or animal welfare -- e.g., food, medicine, education). I take it that it's the more common term in the UK for "non-profits", but am concerned I'm missing some UK nuance. My understanding is that in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, the plural term "charities" is unambiguous; it means government-registered partly-tax-exempt entities that exist exclusively for approved charitable purposes. The range of approved activities that "charities" in those jurisdictions can perform is much more restricted than applies in the case of "non-profit organizations" in the US, e.g. the latter can engage in certain types of political activity, whereas that is strictly illegal for "charities" in the UK/Aus/NZ. "Non-profit organizations" in the US are roughly speaking a supercategory of the UK/Aus/NZ's "charities". I !vote keep all the categories you mentioned, including Category:Charities, as separate categories. - Neparis (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it has a specific legal meaning in some places, it has a different meaning in others. That's why the overall category tree is messy: because "charities" is used in many places with different meanings. I'd support keeping "charities" in places where it is the term for a particular tax-status (although it will be a pain to police those categories); but the overall category tree includes many countries with a different meaning. Do you have some thoughts about what to do with Category:Charities, looking at the subject- and country-specific subcats, and comparing with Category:Non-profit organizations and Category:Non-governmental organizations? --Lquilter (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Other terminology for the sector"
"There is a growing movement within the “non”-profit and “non”-government sector to define itself using more proactive wording. Instead of being defined by “non” words, organizations are suggesting new terminology to describe the sector. The term “civil society organization” (CSO) has been used by a growing number of organizations, such as the Center for the Study of Global Governance.[5] The term “citizen sector organization” (CSO) has also been advocated to describe the sector — as one of citizens, for citizens — by organizations such as Ashoka: Innovators for the Public. [6] This labels and positions the sector as its own entity, without relying on language used for the government or business sectors."

Is NGO a more popular term in the wider world, while NPO a term that would have meaning and use only in capitalist countries? Further thoughts? Hmains (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • NGO is a term that comes out of a specific context: organizations that worked with the UN in some capacity. So it initially applied to international orgs and orgs with a development or human rights focus, but not all of them -- just those in the UN's ambit. That's still generally true.
  • I agree that charitable activities is a sub-set of organizations. The problem is that, in fact, there is not just one "common understanding". In the UK it is synonymous with a particular tax-exempt status (see this link for more info). See the first section of the charities article: "Charities are all non-profit organizations, however, not all non-profit organizations are charities. Organizations that are only partly dedicated to charitable purposes are sometimes considered as, or treated as, charities, depending on specific regulations at a given jurisdiction. Some charitable organizations may be established by companies as part of tax planning and strategies." So it's tax-exempt status in some places, and varies according to jurisdiction. But "charities" also has a common parlance meaning, referring generally to health, education and welfare-oriented organizations. Thus the term is ambiguous, and that's why it's not useful for a generic "organizations" category. We're handling the subject-aspect of it by organizing the specific types of charitable activities by subject within Category:Organizations by subject, and the legal status in Category:Organizations by legal status. The latter (which includes UK "charities" is tricky because lots of organizations with hold multiple sub-parts with different tax statuses. In the US and the UK, if you lobby more than X% of the time, that's a different tax status, so groups will set up a sub-group to do it.
  • I'm pretty sure the for-profit/non-profit distinction holds regardless of the "capitalism" or "non" status of a country. Is there some example society or nation that you're specifically concerned about?
  • I would strongly recommend against using terms like "civil society organization" that are not widely adopted or recognized. We already have three trees, with people basically using whichever tree they are more familiar with. If you look through Category:Charities and Category:Non-profit organizations and Category:Non-governmental organizations you will see that WP editors do not have any clear criteria for placing in one or the other.
Lquilter (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Is there anything that defines NGOs in a unique way that would differentiate NGO (non-government) from NPOs (non-profit) in general? If so, we need to nail down the definition and then review all the articles and subcats of Category:Non-governmental organizations to ensure they are properly categorized and the rest moved to Category:Non-profit organizations directly; if not, then the NGO cat needs to disappear, all the NGO subcats be renamed, and all the articles involved be moved so they only reside in NPO or one of its subcats. This might involve 600+ articles and subcats to add to the thousands of articles already in the NPO cat.

I still think that charities is a legitimate subcat and charities can be defined by the country in which they are based and by the content of the WP article that says the organization is a charity or does not say so. As for articles that are wrongly in or not in the charity cat, they need to be corrected--editors are always making mistakes in what cat to place items so the fact of errors is not reason enough to get rid of cats. As far as charity articles also being categorized as NPO, that can be removed since charity is a subcat of NPO. Looking at the various subcats of NPO, it is not obvious to me what other subcat these charity articles (and all the Category:Charities subcat articles as well) would go into. That would mean dumping these hundreds of additional articles directly into the Category:Non-profit organizations without subcats so this NPO cat would then directly have 1500 or so articles. Not good at all.

In any case, when a proper category strucuture can be put into effect, many hundreds of articles need to be re-categorized so the article is not part of a subcat and also its parent category (double level categorization) and the subcat is the only proper place for the article. Hmains (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • NGOs are distinct from NPOs in two ways. One, the context of those orgs as I've previously explained -- the term started being applied to some orgs who worked w/ the UN who were not governments. Those orgs might be "charities" (UK) or "non-profit orgs" (US), or any other kind of legal status orgs; just non-government. They were mostly human rights & welfare. Two, obviously by definition they are "non-governmental". In theory that could be distinguished but in practice it is not. The theoretical distinctions would include non-profits with a regulatory role (like some professional associations), or for-profits that are established and make a profit (some cultural organizations or business incubators, for example).
  • As for dumping, most of "charities" and "NGOs" are in subject and country subcategories; these could then be merged with their parallel subject & country categories. Many of them are already classed in more than one of the 3 trees anyway.
  • Hmains, I understand that you think that "charities" is a useful distinction. Can you please provide the precise definition of "charities" that we should use, and how that would relate to the "Category:Non-profit organizations" and "Category:Organizations by subject" and "Category:Organizations by legal status"? Please draw out a cat tree with definitions so I can understand your counter-proposal. --Lquilter (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charities are already defined within each jurisdiction. The local definition varies somewhat, but let's just categorise according to the legal status of each organisation. In every case it is clear to the entity whether it is a charity or not.
  • An individual article should be in Category:Charities if the org is a charity; it should also be in other appropriate categories. These might include its legal status, and its primary purpose.
I don't see why any page should be in both Category:Charities and Category:Non-profit organizations.
  • However, I do think the tree needs changing at one point. "Legal status" (multi-dimenesional) is not the same as "form of legal entity" (mutually exclusive). Category:Charities is not a form of legal entity like a company or IPS, so should be removed from Category:Legal entities. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fayenatic, how are you defining the term "charities"? As I tried to point out, "charities" is ambiguous: it is a legal status in some places, and in common parlance it typically refers to health, education & welfare activities. But there is no single consistent meaning for the term, which is why it is not useful for categorization. It is not at all clear whether an organization is a "charity" or what that might mean -- like other legal statuses it is jurisdiction-specific, but unlike other legal statuses ("corporation") the requirements and definitions vary widely. Charity gives some idea of the variance, I think. --Lquilter (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to help me, what are the 3 trees? if NGOs are distinct from NPOs, do the NGOs need their own cat structure or should the NGO cat and subcat structure be merged into the non-profit one. I am confused. Hmains (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry this is confusing. Let me say again: (1) The three categories are NGOs, NPOs, and charities. (2) These three are not effectively distinguished here at Wikipedia; see the category notes which try to explain that. Thus we have three trees that are effectively redundant. This makes navigating those trees really difficult. Many orgs are in all 3 categories. I recommend collapsing those three into "non-profit organizations" as the term least subject to confusion. (3) The "charitable purposes" that you describe are generally separately recognized in subjects; see Category:Organizations by subject which includes the health, education, welfare, and other activities typically considered "charitable". (4) NGOs has a specific meaning according to the UN but it's used generically; here people have used it synonymously with NPOs. It's an ambiguous term, since by the name it could include businesses, but by convention, it doesn't. --Lquilter (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now understand and agree with the 3 to 1 merge. Now I suppose you need do a new, clean CfD for all the categories involved. I you miss any, I will try to help by adding them. You may want to use various arguments you used in the above discussion to advance your point in the CfD and convince others of the goodness of this change. Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded yet. I was arguing that charities are legally defined in their own jurisdiction, but I think you are saying that in some jurisdictions there is not a clear-cut boundary. Nevertheless, Charities exist for public benefit, whereas Non-profits include organisations that exist mainly for private benefit, e.g. category:professional associations. I suppose the prof assoc's and such should generally be down-categorised to a specific sub-cat for each such grouping. The strongest argument for merger seems to be that in practice there is currently too much inconsistency and overlap.
Before going to a formal CFM, I suggest first that all Charity categories, e.g. Category:Charities by country and its sub-cats, should be put into the Non-Profit Orgs category for that locality etc. Or perhaps you could do that and add a link to a general discussion at Category Talk:Charities the same time, to attract a wider discussion. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI -- I, and others, have been trying for a while to get folks involved in this discussion, using both various category talk pages, category scope notes, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations; not a lot of success, so that's why I raised it here -- to try to get people (like you) also thinking about this. ... Anyway, you're basically right about the problem -- it's a combination of (a) varying definitions in places; and (b) inconsistent usage in Wikipedia. I've been working on the many, many subcats of orgs for a while now and will keep doing so, before making a comprehensive proposal. Do please feel free to join in on conversations at Category talk:Organizations and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations/Taskforce-Categorization.
Just on the substance -- I'm not at all sure that "charities", the legal status, necessarily requires "public purposes"; there are plenty of private purposes (e.g., maintenance of graves, foundations) that can be considered "charities" in some places. But because it is very much a matter of legal definitions, I think it's much, much better to just go ahead and straightforwardly class the "charitable purpose" by subject -- e.g., "Category:humanitarian aid organizations". --Lquilter (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents: I think a large part of the problem is that the categories are using sideways definitions. Who cares if these organizations are making profit or associate with a government? Those aspects are not really defining, and come into play because of taxes and other legal issues. "Charities" is the best-defined category, but it is also apparently too ambiguous.
I would advocate a replacement/merge of these three categories with the following existing categories:

- Category:Civic and political organizations

This is not a perfectly one-to-one merge, but exceptions should of course be handled in an exceptional manner. --Eliyak T·C 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree that subject categorization is the most important, and that the legal/tax status is arguably much less relevant, but with respect, the categories are way too hairy to accommodate these moves right now, IMO. There would be as many or more exceptions as there would be things that fit. --Lquilter (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pantheon[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pantheon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not the primary usage of the term. Rename to Category:Pantheon (Marvel Comics). -Sean Curtin (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete - per extensive precedent we do not categorize members of super-teams by affiliation. Otto4711 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:BattleTech publications[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:BattleTech publications to Category:BattleTech. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BattleTech publications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Too small a category, upmerge to BattleTech Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pedology[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pedology to Category:Pedology (soil study)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To distinguish from Pedology (children study). Main article is Pedology (soil study). Snocrates 05:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support or other rename - this is a case where the medieval Latin substitution of e for ae has an unfortunate consequence of causing an ambiguity, and this seems to have been followed in American orthography. It migh be better to rename the child study subject to "Paedology" (given as an alternative spelling in the main article - and cuirrently a redirect), both the category and the main article. In Britain, child medicine is paediatrics. The Greek word at the first element means child and transliterates as Paid-, but if mediated through Latin, it would become Paed-. My old Oxford dictionary has neither meaning of pedology or any cognate words except pedagogue (literally child leader), from a Greek word mediated through French. The soil study has no possible alternative spelling, as the Greek root is ped-. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Purge of inappropriately categorized articles and then let's see what's left - a cursory examination indicates that most of these articles are miscategorized. They are types of soil and should be (and in many cases already are) under Category:Types of soil. Once those are gone, the remaining articles may give a better indication of how or if to rename. Otto4711 (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the category is about the science, it would appear that the soils should be removed and I have updated the intro to make that clear. Given that Category:Edaphology exists for the companion science, then I think this one should be retained after the suggested cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that the soil type articles are categorized improperly as pedology articles. It is clearly the proper cat for those soil types specific to pedology as the typing system (as opposed to geological, or engineering or wine-grape growing typing systems). This dual categorization approach is consistent with accepted practice within Wikipedia. Note how the articles in Category:Types of cancer are also categorized under the "-ology" responsible for that type. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I would not oppose renaming the other category as proposed by Peterkingiron and leaving this alone if that is where consensus winds up. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because there is no Category:Pedology (children study) and there never will be. According to the article, pedology (children study) was established in 1893 but development ended 21 years later at the beginning of World War I. Since this pedology never developed into maturity, there is no common established understanding as to the scope of pedology (children study).--Paleorthid (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parliamentary reports[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:French commissions and inquiries. Kbdank71 16:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parliamentary reports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See the discussion above -- I can support merging one type of report into a different type of report, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to change reports into organizations. --Lquilter (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CRM software[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CRM software to Category:Customer relationship management software
Category:Free CRM software to Category:Free customer relationship management software
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match article Customer relationship management. Snocrates 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:PFLP members[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:PFLP members to Category:Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine members. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PFLP members to Category:Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Snocrates 04:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:PLO members[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:PLO members to Category:Palestine Liberation Organization members. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PLO members to Category:Palestine Liberation Organization members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match parent Category:Palestine Liberation Organization and main article Palestine Liberation Organization. Snocrates 04:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but to Category:PLO personalities. The PLO is a pseudo-state organisation, not an individual membership based organization. 'PLO' is a highly recognized abbreviation, and could stay in the name. --Soman (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Rename to Category:Palestine Liberation Organization members per nom. The PLO is not directly a memership organisation, but is composed of various membership groups, some of which are correctly subcats of this; this categ is useful for members of smaller PLO-affiliated groups without their own category, as well as for those of unknown groups. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 20:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Northern Kentuckians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Northern Kentuckians to Category:People from Kentucky. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Northern Kentuckians to Category:People from Northern Kentucky
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As the original creator of this category, I believe it should be consistent with other "People from" categories. Dale Arnett (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lexington education[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Lexington education to Category:Education in Lexington, Kentucky. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lexington education to Category:Education in Lexington, Kentucky
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard for this type of category is "Education in Foo", and the rename will also match the parent (Category:Lexington, Kentucky) and main article of Lexington, Kentucky. Dale Arnett (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - There are other Lexingtons, for sure, and there's no reason to lump together Lex, MA and Lex, KY, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Azerbaijani khanates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Azerbaijani khanates to Category:Khanates of the South Caucasus
Nominator's rationale: The articles within the category are all covered under this article: Khanates of the Caucasus. The reason is simple, the khanates in question encompassed territories way outside of Azerbaijan (modern or historical, in any sense). Also, although the majority of them were indeed located within modern Azerbaijan, the title Azerbaijani is still incorrect because they were in fact Persian. Alternatively, the category could be renamed to Caucasian khanates. Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These khanates are called Azerbaijani because Azerbaijani people constituted majority of population in those regions and those khanates were ruled by ethnic Azerbaijanis. Grandmaster (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. By the same logic, Armenia did not exist from 5th century A.D. till 20th century, while for some reason what was considered Erivan khanate and later Erivan Governorate of Russian Empire is for some reason referred as Armenian territory.
* Reference: "In 1805, Tsitsianov continued his work of expansion, obtaining the submission of the khanates of Shekin, Karabagh and Shirvan. Typically in consolidating Russian rule in the Azeri khanates which bordered the Georgian lands, Tsitsianov would insist that a Russian garrison be placed in the principal fortress..." (Nikolas K. Gvosdev. Imperial Policies and Perspectives Towards Georgia, 1760-1819, Palgrave Macmillan, 2000, ISBN 0312229909, p. 106).
If more references are needed, I will be glad to provide those. Atabek (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suspect that this is a political hot potatoe, about which we need to be careful. I think we are discussing the Transcaucasus or South Caucasus, not both sides of the mountains, so I must oppose the nomination IN THIS FORM. However the present name is also unsatisfactory, because some of the khanates covered the territory of Georgia and Armenia. Aserbaijani suggests a relation to the present nation. I wonder whether Category:Azeri khanates might be a more satisfactory (and politically neutral term, assuming the rulers were all ethnic Azeris. I know little of this subject. However the main article (though little more than a list) is Khanates of the Caucasus. This may need to be renamed following the outcome of this debate. We need to be careful to chose a name that provoides a WP:NPOV on political questions. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The rulers where by no means Azeri. The overwhelming majority of them were Persians, some of them were Turkic speakers, identifying them with modern Azeris is dubious at best and even then they were merely Persian subjects. The only proper category for this subject is a geographic one, ergo my proposition to rename the category to Khanates of the Caucasus. I have multiple sources that confirm this: S. Frederick Starr mentions the "Russian annexation of Persian khanates north of the Arax river between 1806 and 1828." from The Legacy of History in Russia and the New Page 259, ISBN 1563243520. Lesley Blanch mentions: "The Persian Khanates of Erivan and Shirvan, with the port of Baku, served their purpose admirably, and so presently did a slice of Turkish border country..." from The Sabres of Paradise: Conquest and Vengeance in the Caucasus Page 31, ISBN 1850434034 I have dozens of other third party, neutral Western sources. My offer is to change the category name accordingly to an npov one.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Khanates of the south Caucasus"? "Persian khanates" might suggest an Iranian claim on the territory. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's even more accurate and doesn't assign any ethnic claim. I think Khanates of the South Caucasus is perfect.-- ΕυπάτωρTalk!! 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to Peterkingiron: "Persian/Iranian Khanates" is correct since some of these Khanates were loyal to the king of Iran/Persia and considered themselves as part of their domain. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Azeri khanate is correct, since these khanates were ruled by ethnic Azerbaijanis, and khan is a title of a Turkic ruler. It is verifiable info too, plenty of sources support this. I don't know how Eupator came to a conclusion that overwhelming majority of khans were Persians. They all belonged to powerful Azerbaijani Turkic clans such as Qajar, Javanshir, Kangarli, etc. Grandmaster (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, since ethnicity is not the only criterion. For example, Swietchowski and many others mentions "vast tracts of Iranian land" were lost in the Caucus in the Gulistan treaty. And European Maps at the time show the area as part Persia. So one can use a geographical and political criterion. They were considered at least de-facto territory of Qajar Iran. And if I call it "Iranian land" others will obviously object. Even if the rulers were Azerbaijani Turkic speakers (I am not sure about Khan of Talysh), some portions of the land did not have uniform Azerbaijani Turkic population. But ethnic criterion as I said is not the only one. I prefer a geographic criterion when it comes to political entities. We used a geographical criterion for Shirwanshah and they are called an "Azeri" state, based on a current geographical criterion. But ethnically they were not Azerbaijani Turkic. I kind of believe this category is useless by itself, since we have a disambigious page [5]. See also the comment of Carlossuarez46 below which is along a similar line. At the same time, at that time, all the maps show the area as Persia. Also the title of Khan might originally be Turkic (others say Xiongu), but it became widely used by speakers of other languages in the ME (Pashtuns/Kurds). I don't mind "Caucasian Azeri Khanates of Persia", but that is too long and others might object. So something simple and non-controversial might be the best solution for Wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - These series of articles are of interest for citizens of Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Personally I would prefer Persian or Iranian Khanates, because many of the European maps from the era (all that I have seen) have considered it part of Persia/Iran. It also gets its fair share of Google book hits. That is how the Europeans at the time would have considered it. But this would be probably the only thing that unites Armenian/Azeri users and both of them would opposite such a name. At the same time, before the Zands/Qajars, there was Turcophone/Azeri Khanates all over Iran and not just the caucus, so the category would be vague. Also some areas, the population were not 100% Turcophone ethnically, like the Erivan Khanate, Karabagh Khanate or Talysh Khanate. From a geographical sense, I would prefer "Khanates of Iran in the Caucus" since that is how European maps have it. In 18th/19th century terminology (when these Khanates actually existed), they would not be called "Azeri Khanates", but many European maps from the era show them as part of Iran/Persia. Also some of these Khanates were loyal to Iran (example Irevan Khanate and Ganja Khanate), and submitted to the Shah. Many sources state that Persia/Iran lost this area to Russia. Also then there is the naming issue, which is another nuisance. Given that there would be opposition to this ("Khanates of Iran in the Caucus/Persian Khanates/Iranian Khanates"), and unfortunately this is Wikipedia, then we should choose "Transcaucasian Khanates" or "Khanates of the South Caucus" based on neutrality. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Ethnicity in the modern sense did not hold sway in that period - so regardless of who populated the regions (clearly open to major dispute and verification problems) or the ethnicity of the rulers (again open to dispute as rulers often married exogenically to firm up their borders or add neighboring lands or allies), the one thing verifiably undisputed is their location in relation to the mountainous region of the Caucusus, let's use a NPOV cat based on that rather than wade in to troubled waters here... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - In normal circumstances, the renaming would be obvious without even needing to bring it up here. Google books provides many more results for Persian Khanates for those Khanates of Azerbaijan. Muslim Khanates could be used, but not specific to those covered here. So Eupator’s change is rational... it is still amazing that Persian members have not opposed much of this inaccurate and misleading category, since Azerbaijan in historic works was in the context of a province of Iran but some members here seem to wish to push a misleading term, which otherwise will be obviously renamed. - Fedayee (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The mare fact that most of Google Books results come up as Persian Khanates is enough reason to rename. VartanM (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Despite being politically dependent on Persia, these khanates were only associated with a specific historical region called Azerbaijan, which in the 17th century was defined as the territory of present-day Azerbaijan and northern Iran (see the Jean Chardin reference in History of the name Azerbaijan). Moreover, the rulers were Turkic-speakers, which eliminates the possibility of them being ethnic Persian. Parishan (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the territory name. Overwhelming majority of sources define the caucus as non-Azerbaijan so do Bakikhanov, Mirza Jamal and host of others in the 19th century plus all the maps from the era in question made in europe. So the consensus and primary sources intrepreted by scholars, show the name was very rarely applied beyond Aras. Also Chardin is making a reference to Media perhaps, but that is not the question. Qajars were also ethnically Turkic, but their land was called Iran/Persia. The association of the name Azerbaijan with "Turkic" is a phenomenon of late 19th or early 20th century. Not the preiod in question. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename.The Turkic-language khanates themselves tend to name their identity as either Qizilbash (Iranian) or local place names (like Shirvan,Talysh and etc). Only after the creation of Azerbaijan republic, for political reasons, it was preferred to name the north of Aras river "Azerbaijan"; then no categorizing similarity existed before of that time between that Khanates. Besides, Armenian meliks (princes) in the region, who were referred to as Khamsa, where neither Turkic nor Muslim.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are several references calling these Azeri or Azerbaijani khanates in published and references books and articles. As far as "phenomenon of 19th and 20th century" goes, I shall remind that the Khanates were independent of Persia, per several references already presented at Talk:Karabakh khanate. More interestingly, the author of the quotes words above calls poet Rumi Persian and claims Persian heritage, when no such state at Persia existed at the time of birth and death of Rumi. If the logic of "Persian" works with respect to Rumi, then I don't see why khanates should not be called Azerbaijani, when they were, as was the foundation of Safavid and Qajar kingdoms, culturally Azerbaijani Turkic. Also if this renaming is appropriate, I propose to rename anything referring to Armenia and Armenian between 5th and 20th century as no such instance as Armenia existed during this period.Atabek (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. I believe you voted oppose already, so I changed it to comment since we can't vote twice. There are also many references that use different terminology. But, the Khanates are called "Turkic" ethnically (100% correct) and geographically they were part de-facto part of Persia. So I said, I have no problem with "ethnic Turkic Khanates of Persia", but the other title seems less involved. Discussion of a political entity vs an ethnicity, cultural heritage (language) of a poet or writer is different. So we can't confuse a person's culture/language and compare it to a geopolitical entity. Persian as a cultural phenomenon (and the name of a language) did exist at the time of Rumi. The exact word used is Farsi/Parsi but in English it is Persia. On the geopolitical entities, we have mentioned the ethnic background of the rulers. Even if they ruled say Isfahan. But when we are discussing political dynasties, then ethnic background and geographics are complementary. So Qajars were a Turkic dynasty of Persia. Also Iran as a geographical terminology existed during the time of Rumi covering a vast land. The area of the republic of Azerbaijan has been called "Arran, Shirwan, Eastern Armenia, Persia and Azerbaijan". But even in this case it is not the big issue. The big issue is that the Khanates were considered part of Iran/Persia(even if some of them were de-facto semi-independent). I draw attention to European maps from the era, they are considered part of Persia. Also in the same talk page, as you noticed, there was Khanates that were loyal to the Qajars (Erivan, Ganja , Nakhchivan) and there are equally if not more quotes on dependence, vassal, semi-independent and etc. If we are just going by geographical entity, then other users might object to say Erivan Khanate. To avoid all these headaches, "South Caucus" is very simple and NPOV term. Else if we are going by ethnicity, then even Khorasan, Mazandaran and Bushehr had Turkic speaking Khans. If we are using geography, then what happens to Erivan Khanate or all the maps that consider it part of Persia and all the sources that say it was Iranian Khanate? There was no Kurdistan or even Azerbaijan as a state during the time of Masud ibn Namdar but we have him listed under the "literature of Azerbaijan", although he was a Kurd. So ethnicity and even geographic entity at the time might not be the only criterion. So these are political entities which are more complex than say the cultural heritage of Bahmanyar, Nizami, Rumi and Masud ibn Namdar and the languages they used and the culture they contributed it too. Cultural heritage can even be shared as in the case of the Persian Zoroastrian Bahmanyar which is shared by both Iran and Azerbaijan. But territory can not be shared between two distinct political entities. Akhundov by his own admission (his own biography) was not ethnically Turkic but actually came from Rasht. But his cultural heritage is Turkic. So I hope we can distinguish clearly between geography and culture heritage/ethnicity. Geographic claims are a source of problem in Wikipedia (do these Khanates belong to Armenia, Azerbaijan or Iran?) and in this case, many sources consider the area Iranian territory at that time. So something very NPOV like "South Caucus" will do.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Azerbaijani Khanates. Azerbaijani sugests that there was a link between those Khanates and what is now is called republic of Azerbaijan. The territory was first under the Iranian sovereignty and then under the Russian one. applying Azeri as an ethnic name is still wrong because in that time the Turkicspeaking people of Southern caucasus were not called Azeri by themselves or outsiders. So rename it.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose and keep the original name. First of all, there is no way they can be called Persian or Iranian khanates for the simple fact that almost all of these khanates were independent or autonomous from the central Afshar and then Gajar courts/princes/dynasties in Tehran. Thus naming them Iranian or Persian you just change the nature of the khanates (kingdoms). Secondly, they cannot be named Caucasus because Azerbaijan is larger and gets beyond the Caucasus and is a historical geography that both the Persian/Gajar rulers and the Russians accepted upon the division of Azerbaijani territories/khanates in 1813 and 1828. --Aynabend (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
first of all it is very new to me that these khanates were not under sovereignty of Afshar and qajar mpires. they were as integrated into the Iranian empires as other Khanates were. Secondly that should not be a criterium. For example Khorasan was not under the sovereignty of Karim Khan Zand, yet no one doubts about that region being Iranian--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale: Names of articles should be the most commonly used name... It yields more result for Persian Khanates, read carefully those three links I have provided. Azerbaijani is misleading, because in modern time it is synonymous to an ethnic identity, while it meant from the region of Azerbaijan. Wikipedia strongly discourage the use of double signification words for titles, when they conflict. Also, how on Earth Azerbaijan in the Iranian realm ever extended as far as Nakhichevan for it to dump it in an Azerbaijani Khanate? So Ulvi, you want to make this as if you are talking about the geographics, but the term Azerbaijani here neither apply to the geography neither to the ethnicity of the Khans.
And Atabek's analogy with Armenia is ridiculous, when we say for example an Armenian Kingdom, we know we are talking about the Armenians and it being an Armenian Kingdom, which in maps was clearly defined. But the Turkic population of the time, could be classified as much Turkmen, Turkish, Tatar as the modern identity of the Azeris. And beside the association o a Turkic speaking people with the Persian province of Azerbaijan did not exist at the time, even less those of Northern Arax. VartanM (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under sovereignity of Afshar and Qajar empires? You must be kidding, man. Have you forgotten when most of these khanates got established? Not in 1747? Remember what happened in that year (if you read any history, of course)? By any chance, was Nadir killed in that year? Where were other Afshars fighting and with whom? Why Aga Mohammed Shah Gajar was attacking and fighting against Karabakh and other khanates? --Aynabend (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you either have not read/understood my comment correctly or acting in such a way. We are obviously talking about a territory within the Iranian realm, therefore I brought the example of Xorasan which was not ¨part of Karim -Khan´s domain after the Nader Shah´s death but nevertheless was still an Iranian territory. The same phenomenon happened one more time in the history but noone questioned its Iranian character.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPeterkingiron's comment is the only logical one here about some of these khanates territories covering the modern Georgian and Armenian territories. However, it should be noted that very small territory of modern Georgia was covered under any of the khanates in the north. Actually Georgian kingdom was an autonomous for the most part of this period and even included Kazakh and Shamshaddil Sultanates of modern Azerbaijan and Armenia. As for Armenia, Irevan Khanate was mostly populated by ethnic Azeris and is rather considered to be "Azerbaijan" in those days, with the same token as most Azerbaijani territories would be counted as Armenia during antique times and early middle ages. --Aynabend (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there existed no Azerbaijan north of Aras at those times. Azerbaijan is the name of the north western part of the contemporary Iran. So even with the best intentions we cannot call them Azerbaijani Khanates--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Babakxorramdin and Andranikpasha, North of the Araxes, including towns as far as Barda and Derbend have been called Azerbaijan as early as 8th century by Arab chronologists. Please visit History of the name of Azerbaijan article discussion page for references we brought. There is no need to rename the article for geographic and ethnographic reasons. Politics and "Azerbaijan" as a name of a state after 1918 is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the Khanates article. --Aynabend (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if look at the history of the name Azerbaijan article, you will see the the north of Araxes has rarely been considered Azerbaijan. A historian who would study something would look at the overwhelming majority of sources and not the statistical outliers. Also the primary sources for that time Bakikhanov, Mirza Jamal, Mirza Adigozal Beg (three people who actually lived in the Caucus and were of Azeri origin) European maps and etc. have not called it Azerbaijan. That is throughout its history that area has been called Shirwa/Arran/Caucaus Abania for most of the time, then Armenia, then Azerbaijan. So the geographical criterion is not correct since there were much more common names and is also matter of dispute (see Barthold, Diakonov or even Swietchowski ..etc.). Also I do not think Armenians with agree to call Erivan geographically as part of Azerbaijan, afterall much more sources in history have called it Armenia (even I agree the composition of Erivan was more Azeri at the time but from a geographical point of view, more sources have considered Erivan as Armenia rather than Azerbaijan). That will lead to unnecessary tension. But if you look at all the European maps from the era, the area is considered part of Persia and the Caucus is not denoted as Azerbaijan. See the maps here:[6][7][8][9]. The other issue is ethnically there were many Khanates in Iran that were Azeri ruled. So if there is an ethnic component, then "Persian Khanates of Azeri origin" would take care of both issues, but then Khanates such as Khorasan, Bushehr and etc. would be added and thus it would not just be Caucasian Khanates. Although more correct would be "Persian Khanates of Turkic origin" since Azerbaijani was not used as an ethnonym them. Heck I would have liked it if say the Turkic speakers of the area had the name Azerbaijani (a Persian name) from the dawn of time instead of "Tork", but fact is fact. "Azari" was used for the local Iranic speakers of Azerbaijan. My main issue is the fact that European maps have considered it part of Persia and so have many sources considered it an area of Iranian land. So it is the political designation rather than geographic/ethnic. So I think South Caucus will cause the least problem. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Before the 1918 the term of Azerbaijan had a different meaning as a Persian region while the modern state of Azerbaijan accepted this name in 1918. -- Andranikpasha (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Eupator has given valid points. It is more accurate and less POV to rename the category to "Khanates of the South Caucasus". -- Davo88 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mayors of Freetown, Sierra Leone[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Mayors of Freetown, Sierra Leone to Category:Mayors of Freetown - the relevant article is Freetown. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Freetown, Sierra Leone to Category:Mayors of Freetown
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match Freetown and Category:Freetown. Picaroon (t) 01:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency. Snocrates 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are too many Freetowns to say that this one should not need category disambiguation. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it needs category disambiguation, then you should feel free to propose moving Freetown and renaming Category:Freetown. Until then, however, we might was well have consistency between the main category and this subcategory, right? Picaroon (t) 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Picaroon. No other national capital bears this name. --Soman (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - the main article is Freetown, not Freetown, Sierra Leone. This is a capital city, not an American small town. The main article has a link to Freetown (disambiguation). If any of other Freetowns are big enough to need subcategories, the category page could have a similar disambiguation link. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title is more specific and should be kept. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 07:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of Krio and indigeneous Sierra Leonean heritage[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Krio and indigeneous Sierra Leonean heritage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is a useful ethnicity intersection. Picaroon (t) 01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_31&oldid=1144709665"